Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the current status of the palliative care provided by long-term care unit that was established together with palliative care unit (PCU). Methods: Self-reported questionnaires were administered to long-term care unit administrators at 24 facilities that was established together with PCU. Questions included: managing the use of narcotic drugs, situation about receiving cancer patients, situation about cooperation with PCU, and difficulty with palliative care. Results: Eighteen (75%) facilities responded to the questionnaire. Fourteen facilities of respondents reported that narcotic drugs were available and usable in long-term care unit, and ten facilities reported that the narcotic drugs could be used in the same way as PCU could. Ten facilities reported that they had doctor(s) knowledgeable about palliative care or prescribing narcotic drugs, and 11 facilities reported that they had nurse(s) experienced about palliative care. Cancer patients were accepted in all 18 long-term care units. Transferring from long-term care unit to PCU due to medical condition changes after hospitalization had been carried out in 17 facilities. Unit administrator’s perceived difficulty lack of staffing, lack of staff expertise and education, and issues surrounding narcotic drug management. Conclusion: These long-term care units were providing palliative care for cancer patients in cooperation with PCU. The survey results indicated the need for solving human resource, educational, and administrative problems.

Purpose: We investigated the benefits and problem of the palliative care provided by long-term care unit through a survey of staff in palliative care units (PCU) and long-term care units. Methods: Self-reported questionnaires were administered to staff who engaged in PCU and long-term care units. Questions included: awareness of WHO palliative care definition, and, the general idea on palliative care, possibility of cooperation with PCU, advantages / disadvantages, and idea for non-cancer palliative care in long-term care unit. Results: We got responses from 248 medical and nursing-care staff. The percentage of “knowing” the WHO definition was 76.5% in medical staff / 32.3% in care worker, 87.6% in PCU experience / 46.5% in non-experience. Categories of responses are good, advantageous, problematic, difficult requirement, difficulty, etc. The main answers were the difficulty of care, problems of knowledge and technique, and points of problems related to personnel shortage. Medical staff or PCU experienced staff pointed out needs of palliative care and improvement of knowledge and skills. Conclusion: Opinions acknowledging the benefits and necessities for palliative care of long-term care units and a number of problems were revealed.

Purpose: We evaluated the significance of support for leaving the palliative care unit temporarily in end-stage terminally ill cancer patients. Methods: We retrospectively investigated the medical records of 27 terminally ill cancer patients who died within 15 days after leaving our palliative care unit temporarily, between January 2011 and December 2012, and distributed a questionnaire to their bereaved family. Results: The age of the patients ranged from 29 to 91 years. Ten patients left the unit without stay and 17 left overnight. The destination of 24 patients was their home, while three had other destinations. For 11 patients, the main purpose of leaving the unit was to finish business, and for 9, was to see their houses once again. After returning to the hospital, the comments of 15 patients were affirmative, and those of 6 were negative. Questionnaire responses were obtained from 18 persons. Families reported anxiety regarding and difficulty with adaptation to the sudden change when the patients left the unit, apparatus support, patient transfer, and patient care. Conclusions: It was useful for the terminally ill cancer patients and their families to receive support when leaving the palliative care unit temporarily. Strategies to cope with the sudden change at the time of leaving the unit could help families feel reassured and secure.

Introduction: We report three cases of women who developed secondary lower-extremity lymphedema after surgery for endometrial cancer. The cancer stage was 2 as per the International Society of Lymphology risk stratification. Case Reports: We performed intensive lymphdrainage of two-phase complex decongestive physiotherapy in each case during a 1-week hospitalization period. The average leg circumference at discharge improved to 92～96% from baseline. Case 1: After primary treatment, a 35-year-old woman presented with temporarily poor self lymphatic drainage during maintenance therapy, and her leg circumference progressively enlarged. However, the patient received reeducation for self lymphatic drainage and outpatient service for lymphedema regularly. Since then, the leg lymphedema has improved. Case 2: A 63-year old woman improved to 92% of baseline and continued an excellent self lymphatic drainage, maintaining 83% with her depression recovered 2.5 years after this hospitalization. Case 3: This case involved a 70-year-old woman in whom maintenance therapy progressed well without aggravation of lymphedema; however, she died in 1.2 years after the first phase treatment due to cancer recurrence. Discussion: Intensive care under short-term hospitalization (for one week) for lower-extremity lymphedema was effective. However, there was one patient in whom self lymphatic drainage became poor. The patients required long-term care for maintenance therapy after primary treatment.

Purpose: To investigate the indications for use of the Japanese version of the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), we evaluated the conditions of patients using and those not using the LCP. Methods: We retrospectively investigated the medical records of 71 LCP patients and 60 non－LCP patients who died in our palliative care unit between March and December 2013. Results: There was no significant difference in patients’ background between the LCP and non－LCP groups. For patients in the non－LCP group, sudden changes in condition were significantly more frequent and deep continuous sedation was used significantly less than in the LCP group. In the LCP group, the average duration on the LCP was 4.0 days, and the beginning criterion was met by three－point or more of all the patients. The initial assessment was achieved except for one case. In the non－LCP group, reasons for not using the LCP were a sudden change in condition (35 patients), a rapid change in medical condition (14), and a risk of falling (4). Conclusions: The LCP met the beginning criterion and was started at suitable time in the LCP group. The LCP is not useful for all patients; it cannot be used for a patient with sudden or rapid changes in condition, or at a risk of falling.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the palliative care for cancer patients provided by a long-term care unit. Methods: We retrospectively investigated the medical records of 194 patients who hospitalized in our long-term care unit between April 2010 and December 2014. The patients shared with a group of two, narcotic drugs non-use period (previous group; until March 2012) and narcotics use period (later group; in April 2012 or later), and it was compared with a background, hospitalization period, result on discharge, narcotic drug administration, symptom relief. And it was surveyed hospitalization dynamics of our palliative care unit for comparison. Result: Cancer patients were 16 (22%) in previous group of 74 patients and were 79 (66%) in later group of 120. The proportion of cancer patients in later group increased to three times (p<0.001). In later group, the average hospital stay was shortened to half (144 days, p<0.01) and the mortality discharge rates increased (78%, p<0.05). Narcotic drugs were administered to more than half (57%) of cancer patients in later group, and pain relief was significantly better. In the period of later group, number of hospitalized patients in palliative care unit was also increased. Conclusion: It was suggested that the long-term unit can perform palliative care for cancer patients in cooperation with the palliative care unit.

Purpose: To investigate the characteristics of sudden abdominal condition change that occur in a palliative care unit, we evaluated the association between these conditions and family acceptance at time of death. Methods: We retrospectively investigated the medical records of 30 terminally ill cancer patients who died of sudden abdominal condition change in our unit between January 2010 and March 2013. We focused particularly on the course of sudden change, symptom relief, explanation of the condition, and family acceptance at time of death. Results: The average time from onset of sudden change in abdominal condition until death was 20.6 hours and the median was 13 hours. Of the 30 total cases, 23 occurred in less than 24 hours. Frequent symptoms during the sudden change were abdominal pain in 28 patients, decreased blood pressure in 21, lowering of consciousness in 12 and disturbed behavior/excitement in 10. Impending symptoms were observed in 18 patients. For patients with good acceptance by family at time of death (21 patients), symptom relief was significantly better, frequency of disturbed behavior/excitement was significantly less, and prior specific explanation was significantly frequent, compared to the poor acceptance group (9 patients). The good acceptance group tended to be have a longer hospital stay, as well as longer time between sudden change and death. Conclusions: Death by sudden abdominal condition change came within 24 hours in a majority of cases. We consider that prior detailed explanation and improving symptom relief helps improve family acceptance.

Delayed hemothorax following blunt chest trauma is classified as a late presentation of hemothorax after a nearly normal chest X-ray on admission. Here, we present a case of delayed hemothorax 5 days after blunt chest trauma with ribs and sternal fracture.

Purpose：We evaluated that the current state from which a palliative care unit receives emergency admission of cancer patients at home. Methods：We retrospectively investigated the medical records of 393 cancer patients who hospitalized in our unit between January 2013 and December 2014. The patients were shared with a group of two, schedule admission (schedule group) and emergency admission (emergency group), and it was compared with a result on discharge and with a hospitalization period. We investigated admission process, the date and time of admission, and reason for admission in emergency group. Results：The number of patients was 224 of schedule group and 169 of emergency group. The mortality rates were 81% in schedule group and 78% in emergency group (not significant). An emergency group for an average of 24.3 days was shorter for 9 days than schedule groups in a hospitalization period of dead leaving patients (p<0.05). In emergency group, admission process included 128 completed-interviews with the hospitalization, 11 incompleted-interviews before admission and 30 first visits, and 129 patients (76％) admitted within the weekday daytime. Many patients had a complaint of severe pain, appetite loss and oral absorption difficulty, and so much. Conclusions：An emergency group admitted the various processes and the much symptom. There were a lot of cases of early hospital death, but also admitted return at home, and our unit played the role of emergency admission.

Objective: To develop and confirm the validity of a Biological Prognostic Score using only blood test results for prediction of prognosis in patients with advanced cancer. Methods: We conducted parametric survival time analysis using blood test results, age, sex, and primary diagnosis as independent variables, and event of death as a dependent variable, among patients in a palliative care unit (a development cohort). We then developed the Biological Prognostic Score (BPS). Thereafter, we confirmed the accuracy of the BPS and the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) prospectively among patients, who withdrew or withheld further curative or life-prolonging therapies, in other facilities (a validation cohort). Results: We developed the BPS, which consists of cholinesterase, blood urea nitrogen, and total iron-binding capacity, from 122 patients in a development cohort. We then examined 195 patients in a validation cohort and found that the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for 1-9 week survival prediction was BPS=0.76-0.86 and PPI=0.69-0.73. Discussion: Our results suggest that the BPS was valid. It will be necessary to perform further examinations in multiple facilities and to explore more generalized parameters that could replace total iron-binding capacity in our BPS.